[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XML-based Automation (Was: Zen or Games?)
[Danny Ayers] > ... > CGs and RDF have a lot in common. Taking the main points of the abstract > syntax for CGs in the ISO standard [1] it's possible to map across fairly > directly to aspects of RDF (this is a 2 minute, first shot attempt) : > > 6.1 Conceptual Graph - RDF model > 6.2 Concept - Resource > 6.3 Conceptual Relation - Statement (/Property) Disagree. "In a conceptual graph, the boxes are called concepts, and the circles are called conceptual relations." (Sowa 2000, p476). RDF has no conceptual relations. They have to be simulated, most likely with bnodes. > 6.4 Lambda Expression - bnode (maybe) Disagree. lambda expressions involve variables. RDF has no varaiables. > 6.5 Concept Type - Class > 6.6 Relation Type - (Property) Class Class, yes, Property no. > 6.7 Referent - Object (of statement) Disagree. A referent is essential an identifier (Sowa, p 424). > 6.8 Context - RDF model Sort of. A context is a subgraph. > 6.9 Coreference Set - I don't there's any defined as such in RDF (but I'm > pretty sure it could be) > 6.10 Module - RDF model (maybe) > > ... > There are other similarities between CGs and RDF when you look at the > details, as *you* have shown in the past [2] ;-) > Good memory (or was it Google?)! Yup, I did, for simple cases it works out well. But CGs have a lot more richness. Basically, RDF is existential-conjunctive, whereas CG can express all four styles (again from Sowa but I do not have a page reference right now). Cheers, Tom P
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|